The gini co-efficient measures how much of the wealth is concentrated among the rich. Why is it that through the 1950's and 60's it steadily dropped (meaning the poor and middle class were growing), and since around 1971, it's been steadily rising (meaning the growth is with the rich)? I will again ask for your opinion. What caused that reversal around 1971?

Ok. Here we go Frank. Do you understand that Data is not simply black and white. That data, when analyzed in different ways, yields different results? You see, there are this things in data, they are called VARIABLES.

Now, your Gini coefficient does not. I repeat, does not, measure wealth in terms of constant dollars. Look that up if you have to.

Further, another important variable that is left out, is the fact that there is a greater proportion of people we would consider rich. What do I mean? Well, in the 1920-1930s, you could probably name on two hands the number of uber wealthy families. The Rockefellers, the Helmsworths, Du Ponts, the Astors, etc.

Now however, the number of wealthily people is considerably higher. Even celebrities have more net worth than the Humphrey Bogarts of the time.

So…..that also skews the data a bit to indicate that their is increase to the wealth of the wealthy, when in fact, there are just more people who are now considered to be wealthy. Why are more people wealthy? Well, many reasons, but some of this is attributable to the increase of women in the workforce and therefore two income families where before there was just ONE income. Wealth did not accumulate as fast when when you have one income vs two.

Finally, the variable also not indicated is true net worth or true net income. What does that mean? Well, you realize that your net income is your gross income, minus expenses. TRUE Net worth is your assets, minus your long term liabilities. So, simply, what matters for the gini coefficient is LEVERAGE. When you have a mortgage, you do not "own" your house. The bank does. Thats why, in order to be considered an "Accredited Investor", your primary residence is EXCLUDED unless you own the home free and clear. Same with your car. If you have an auto loan, you don't own the car. The bank does. So…the more shit people leverage themselves to get, the greater it appears their wealth is, when it reality, it might not be that black and white.

For example, You can have a $200,000 car, a $2,000,000 home, but not have $100 to put in your gas tank. You might appear to be wealthy….but in reality, you are not.

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote: Your statement that we've been in a trough for 42 years is patently false.

(09-12-2013 09:27 AM)frankksj Wrote: I said no strawmen please, and look what you did. If you were in a strong position, why do you need to make stuff up? You know I'm just going to say "copy/paste where I said that" and you're stuck. I never said that. YOU made the ludicrous statement that the reason the poor and middle class got stronger in the 1950's and 60's was because the economy was in a trough. All I did was ask you what you call the period since then.

Do you know what the definition of a strawmen is? You made this statement.

(09-12-2013 09:27 AM)frankksj Wrote: Since we've now been going 42 years without a “trough” and the poor and middle class are getting wiped out, what can we do to bring back another “trough”?

Quoting what you said isn't making a straw man argument. You are implying here that there hasn't been a trough for 42 years and you are wrong. We are currently coming out of one. The 1990 was the expansion. 2005 was the peak, and 2008-2010 was the recession, now we are at the end of a trough. Housing prices leveled off, and are now increasing again.

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote: I'm not going to spoon feed you information. If you don't know what the characterists of a trough is, look it up.

(09-12-2013 09:27 AM)frankksj Wrote: Look, when I asked you why the poor and middle class gained ground during the 50's and 60's, your brilliant answer was that it's because it "was a trough". Like cjlr, you're making up your own definitions of words. No wonder you guys agree! In English, the word "trough" doesn't mean "the poor get richer". So I asked YOU to explain more about what YOU mean by the word "trough". YOU are the one who claimed "trough" explained the growth in the 50's and 60's.

I never, not once, stated that a trough meant the poor get richer. or that a "trough explained the growth in the 50's and 60's.." Not once. Lemme check again. Nope, still true. I didn't once say that.. Go ahead and reread what I said about them. A trough, I stated, is categorized as the leveling off of decline. How on earth does that mean growth? I described, as simply as I could, what the business cycles were so that you didn't attribute the leveling to be more than it was. It is not my fault you do not understand these concepts.

Again, Frank. You take tiny pieces of what someone says, and you turn it on its head. I said that the income tax rate, as well as the drop in interest rates. together. You cannot separate them. You do realize that there is more to income tax than just the tax bracket, yes? That every year, more and more credits get written into the tax codes, allowing for a reduction in the amount of income tax actually paid. You know that whole "Married - Filing Separately" thing? Yeah…thats recent, because as of the 1950-present, more WOMEN are entering the workforce and staying in the workforce.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson

(09-12-2013 11:25 AM)Cathym112 Wrote: Ok. Here we go Frank. Do you understand that Data is not simply black and white. That data, when analyzed in different ways, yields different results?

Here we agree 1 million %. And it's something I struggle to get mainstream economists to accept. Yes, like I said earlier, analyzing data is like looking at a Rorschach test. Everybody sees what they want to see. Therefore, I prefer the Austrian economics method of using logic and reason to understand what the data is telling you.

Everything else you said about the gini I always agreed with anyway.

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote: Your statement that we've been in a trough for 42 years is patently false.
Do you know what the definition of a strawmen is? You made this statement.

(09-12-2013 09:27 AM)frankksj Wrote: Since we've now been going 42 years without a “trough” and the poor and middle class are getting wiped out, what can we do to bring back another “trough”?

Sorry, you missed the sarcasm. I asked you to explain why the poor and middle class grew during the 50's and 60's (the gini coefficient dropped) and why from 1971 until the present it's gone the other way; the gini coefficient keeps rising, and today the richest 1% for the first time ever own 40% of the wealth.

You responded "So all this crap about the 1950s and 1960s had very little to do with fiscal or monetary policy, rather, it was just a part of the cycle, specifically, it was the trough."

See, you're the one who said that the improvement in income equality during the 50's and 60's was because of a "trough", and since the question is "why has it gone in the reverse direction from 1971-2013", the reasonable conclusion from your answer is that "we're not in a trough". So, my comment was sarcasm. Of course I don't believe that the 50's and 60's was a "trough", nor that the period since was "not a trough", nor that "trough" explains income equality. I was being sarcastic when I repeated back your logic, and you mistakenly thought I was saying it. So it's a mis-communication.

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote: I never, not once, stated that a trough meant the poor get richer. or that a "trough explained the growth in the 50's and 60's.." Not once. Lemme check again. Nope, still true. I didn't once say that.. Go ahead and reread what I said about them.

I just did, see your post #131 quoted above. When I asked why equality improved in the 50's and 60's and got worse from 1971-present, you DID reply "the 1950s and 1960s ... was the trough".

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote: Again, Frank. You take tiny pieces of what someone says, and you turn it on its head. I said that the income tax rate, as well as the drop in interest rates. together. You cannot separate them.

But there WAS no change in income tax rates. Your claim is that this was caused by a change in income tax rates & interest rates, and my point was valid. There WAS NO CHANGE in income tax rates. So you're making up causation when there's not even correlation.

So I will repeat the question that you keep dancing around and refusing to answer:

What happened in 1971 that caused the US's gini coefficient to reverse course, so that in the 20 years prior, no matter what administration was in charge or what the tax rates were, the gini coefficient steadily dropped, and since 1971, they've been rising no matter what policy is in place. WHY IS THAT?

You said I'm frustrating to talk to because I always respond with questions, but you understand this is a deliberate debate technique. It's only frustrating to get a question if you don't have an answer. If you know the answer, you will gladly show off your knowledge and answer the question with authority. I know that mainstream (Keynesian) economists have no idea what happened in 1971. And when I point out that their opponents, the Austrian economics, actually knew in 1971 what was going to happen and have models to explain what happened and why, in my experience the Keynesians ignore this. So I love asking Keynesians what happened in 1971 because your frustration answering the question proves you don't have the answer.

(09-12-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote: How are the provisions of a lien enforced, buddy?

Jeez. This is like 10 times you've asked the same question and I keep answering it the same way, and you just keep asking the same question. You keep telling me I'm wrong that property liens do not require violence to enforce them (cjlr: "state law enforcement reserve the right to use violence to handle worst-case non-compliance with the law.")

And I keep asking you NAME ONE PERSON IS IN JAIL IN SWITZERLAND FOR NOT PAYING TAXES! There are none. It hasn't happened. Ever. If there was, you'd state a name. Therefore you are WRONG that liens require "violence".

Why is this so complicated? What happens if you walk into McDonald's, go to the counter, and say "I refuse to pay for a hamburger"? Does the McDonald's cashier arrest you? Does she get violent? No, dumb ass. She just says "Fine, you don't get your hamburger. Next." No violence required, because it's a voluntary transaction both parties enter into willingly. Just like buying property. The price for the hamburger is $5, the price for defense of the property and title is whatever the property tax is.

Similarly, you drop your car off at the mechanics, he does the work. You refuse to pay. Does he shoot you? Does he have you arrested? NO!!! He files a mechanics lien and won't give you the car back. You want the car? Pay the lien. If not, he keeps the car and will sell it. NO VIOLENCE REQUIRED!!!!

You liberals just cannot comprehend that it's remotely possible to engage in any sort of transaction voluntarily, where it's a win-win, and one party doesn't have a gun.

In Switzerland, NOBODY IS IN JAIL FOR REFUSING TO PAY TAXES. NOBODY. I've made that claim a million times, and you cannot provide one name or one link to the contrary. So my claim remains valid until you produce a name.

With property taxes, you need the government to preform a service (like a hamburger) and they are holding onto the title to your property (ie the deed), so when they file a lien, there is NO NEED TO ARREST YOU FOR REFUSING TO PAY. EVER. Worst case, the lien will stay on the property your whole life, accruing interest, and when you die, if your next of kin wants the title to the property, he has to pay off the lien. If not, the government keeps the property and sells it, and recoups all that last property tax revenue with generous interest. If you were willing to open your mind just a crack then MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, you'd see that it's possible to have a government that has reciprocal laws and does not initiate violence on people who themselves are not violent.

(09-12-2013 11:25 AM)Cathym112 Wrote: Ok. Here we go Frank. Do you understand that Data is not simply black and white. That data, when analyzed in different ways, yields different results?

Here we agree 1 million %. And it's something I struggle to get mainstream economists to accept. Yes, like I said earlier, analyzing data is like looking at a Rorschach test. Everybody sees what they want to see. Therefore, I prefer the Austrian economics method of using logic and reason to understand what the data is telling you.

Everything else you said about the gini I always agreed with anyway.

THEN WHY ARE YOU USING THE CHART TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM IF THE DATA IN THE CHART IS NOT PROPORTIONATE TO THE SITUATION!?!??! FFS

AGGHHHHHGHHGHHGHHGHHGH!!!!!!!!

(09-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote: I never, not once, stated that a trough meant the poor get richer. or that a "trough explained the growth in the 50's and 60's.." Not once. Lemme check again. Nope, still true. I didn't once say that.. Go ahead and reread what I said about them.

(09-12-2013 02:13 PM)frankksj Wrote: I just did, see your post #131 quoted above. When I asked why equality improved in the 50's and 60's and got worse from 1971-present, you DID reply "the 1950s and 1960s ... was the trough".

income equality does not = growth. You. are. so. frustrating.

(09-12-2013 02:13 PM)frankksj Wrote: So I will repeat the question that you keep dancing around and refusing to answer:

What happened in 1971 that caused the US's gini coefficient to reverse course, so that in the 20 years prior, no matter what administration was in charge or what the tax rates were, the gini coefficient steadily dropped, and since 1971, they've been rising no matter what policy is in place. WHY IS THAT?

I'm not refusing to answer it. I told you I'm not going to spoon feed this shit to you. You are like a baby bird with your mouth open waiting for me to vomit out answers. I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO EXPLAIN THIS SHIT TO YOU IF YOU DON'T HAVE A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS!!!

(09-12-2013 02:13 PM)frankksj Wrote: You said I'm frustrating to talk to because I always respond with questions, but you understand this is a deliberate debate technique. It's only frustrating to get a question if you don't have an answer.

Its not that I don't have an answer. Not at all.

Your specific questions about economics, the business cycle, and trying to get you to understand that the data you claim supports your assertion is actually just garbage, I already answered. What happened specifically in 1971? I wasn't born then, I don't have every nuance of every year memorized. GO. LOOK. IT. UP. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

(09-12-2013 02:13 PM)frankksj Wrote: If you know the answer, you will gladly show off your knowledge and answer the question with authority. I know that mainstream (Keynesian) economists have no idea what happened in 1971. And when I point out that their opponents, the Austrian economics, actually knew in 1971 what was going to happen and have models to explain what happened and why, in my experience the Keynesians

First of all, Keynesian Economics is not a place. Its not a party of thought, (republican/democrat/Christian). Therefore, there is no such thing as a "Keynesian."
All Keynesian Economics is is just a theory of aggregate demand and its affect on GDP & Inflation. Its based on the circular flow of money. Thats it. No need to dress it up, bud. And what models are you referring to? I'd love to have a look, as I am not familiar with "Austrian Economics"

here in an interesting Criticism on Austrian Economics from Bryan Caplan of GM University. Sounds kinda crack pot economics to me. ya know, how an "Alternative medicine" doctor might be perceived in the western medicine community. Quackery.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson

I want to say my two cents but I like this debate because I'm in economics classes so it is interesting.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.

(09-12-2013 03:09 PM)Question Wrote: I want to say my two cents but I like this debate because I'm in economics classes so it is interesting.

please. By all means. Don't be shy!

First day in my economics class - my professor told me, "Yeah, if they did increase minimum wage, jobs would lay off the teenagers first. But prices for consumer goods can still go up, so it doesn't guarantee that things would instantly get better."

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.

(09-12-2013 02:56 PM)Cathym112 Wrote: THEN WHY ARE YOU USING THE CHART TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM IF THE DATA IN THE CHART IS NOT PROPORTIONATE TO THE SITUATION!?!??! FFS

Huh??? All I said was that the gini coefficient is a measure of inequality, and asked you why the trend towards being more equal changed in 1971. I suspect you're so frustrated because so many economists preach that inequality is an evil destroying society, and deep down you realize that there MUST be some reason for the sudden change in 1971, but you don't have the answer.

I never said it did. All I said is that when inequality increases, it means the growth is happening disproportionately faster for the rich than the poor (or the poor are getting poorer). You seriously find that controversial?

(09-12-2013 02:56 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:

(09-12-2013 02:13 PM)frankksj Wrote: So I will repeat the question... What happened in 1971 that caused the US's gini coefficient to reverse course...

I'm not refusing to answer it. I told you I'm not going to spoon feed this shit to you. You are like a baby bird with your mouth open waiting for me to vomit out answers. I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO EXPLAIN THIS SHIT TO YOU IF YOU DON'T HAVE A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS!!!
Its not that I don't have an answer. Not at all.

That sounds like refusing to answer it. If you DO have the answer, like you just said, then why in the very next paragraph did you write: "What happened specifically in 1971? I wasn't born then, I don't have every nuance of every year memorized. GO. LOOK. IT. UP."

When I first explained what happened in 1971, why hurl insults if, as you just admitted, you don't know what happened? How can you tell me I'm wrong, if you don't have the answer? And when I asked you again what happened in 1971, why not just say "I don't know". Isn't that a lot more level-headed then spewing out all sorts of insults because you don't know the answer? And, when YOU respond to me and YOU invite me to debate you, and then I asked you a basic question, it's really lame to refuse to answer and just throw some insult like "I'm not going to spoon feed you this shit." If you weren't willing to address the subject, why did you even reply to me in the first place?

True, Keynesians say Austrians are quacks. BUT, there's some good videos below showing lots of predictions over the years from the leading Keynesians vs. the leading Austrians. It speaks mountains to the Keynesians' objectivity that they dismiss as quackery something that is SOOO much better at predicting how government policies will affect the economy. It goes back to the saying "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic [or quackery]". If somebody claims to be able to predict earthquakes, we'll assume he's a quack. But, if the earthquakes happen right on schedule as predicted, the quacks are the ones who ignore it imo.

(09-12-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote: How are the provisions of a lien enforced, buddy?

As a PS, even _IF_ one jurisdiction passed a law that stated "everybody who buys a house here after 1/1/14 and doesn't pay his property taxes, he will be shot on site."

Then in that case, sure, violence would be used to enforce property taxes. BUT, as I've said a million times, I'm not fighting against using violence to enforce voluntary contracts because all parties are willingly agreeing to subject themselves to the enforcement in the contract. If you buy a house in that hypothetical jurisdiction with full disclosure that you'll be shot if you refuse to pay property taxes, then simply don't buy the house if you're not willing to be subjected to that violence. You can always rent. Nobody is forcing you.

So, when you buy a house, you ARE voluntarily signing a contract agreeing to certain things, and agreeing to subject yourself to whatever enforcement measures are stipulated in the contract.

That's a VERY different situation than if, for example, one group of voters (51%) orders another group to do something (the 49%), or else face violence, and provides the latter no means to relocate or escape the violence. In this case, there is no voluntary consent. It's an entirely different concept.

I think our debating is hopeless because you cannot accept that there is a difference between a voluntary contract vs. an involuntary one.